Fetzer v. Director, North Dakota Dept. of Transp., 910043
| Decision Date | 16 August 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 910043,910043 |
| Citation | 474 N.W.2d 71 |
| Parties | Michael J. FETZER, Petitioner and Appellee, v. DIRECTOR, NORTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Respondent and Appellant. Civ. |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Duis & Duis Law Office, Fargo, for petitioner and appellee.
Elaine Ayers, Asst. Atty. Gen., Atty. Gen.'s Office, Bismarck, for respondent and appellant.
The Director of the North Dakota Department of Transportation (the Department) appealed from a district court judgment reversing the Department's two-year revocation of Michael J. Fetzer's driver's license. We conclude that Fetzer's license was properly revoked, and we therefore reverse the district court judgment.
On June 9, 1990, Fargo police officer David Todd was dispatched to investigate a report that an intoxicated person was driving a brown Ford pickup in south Fargo. Officer Todd found Fetzer's pickup parked on a hill in an undeveloped area within the city. Fetzer was sleeping in the pickup with his feet in front of the driver's seat and the upper portion of his body lying on the passenger side. The keys were in the ignition but the motor wasn't running. Officer Todd and another officer woke Fetzer who appeared to be under the influence of alcohol. The officers arrested Fetzer for being in physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of NDCC 39-08-01, and then asked him to take a test to determine his blood alcohol content. Fetzer refused the test.
Fetzer was later notified that the Department intended to revoke his license under NDCC 39-20-04 for refusing to submit to testing as required by NDCC 39-20-01. After an administrative hearing, the Department revoked his driver's license for a period of two years. Fetzer appealed the revocation to the district court. The district court reversed the Department's decision on the ground that NDCC 39-08-01 was inapplicable because Fetzer was found in his pickup in an area where the public did not have a right of access for vehicular use.
The Department appealed from the district court's judgment. Thereafter, to resolve criminal charges against him for his June 9, 1990 arrest, Fetzer pled guilty to violating NDCC 39-08-01. Fetzer's attorney then wrote this court that he elected not to oppose the appeal because Fetzer's guilty plea "rendered any issues he could raise moot." Fetzer did not file an appellate brief or present oral argument.
We agree with the Department that Fetzer's guilty plea to the criminal charges does not moot this appeal. If a driver violates NDCC 39-08-01, and refuses to submit to a test to determine his blood alcohol content, his driver's license can be revoked under NDCC 39-20-04. Even though Fetzer's criminal conviction of physical control may result in suspension of his driver's license under NDCC 39-06.1-10, a suspension does not preclude administrative revocation of Fetzer's license for refusing a test under NDCC 39-20-04.
There is some congruence between administrative procedures for license suspension and revocation. NDCC 39-06.1-10 on administrative suspensions for traffic violations provides for credit for the time that a license revocation is imposed for refusing a test. Subsection 4 of NDCC 39-06.1-10 says:
After a conviction of a person for violating section 39-08-01, the commissioner shall, in suspending the person's operator's license, give credit for the time in which license suspension or revocation has been or is being imposed under chapter 39-20 in connection with the same offense.
From this provision, it is clear that the Legislature intended to make license revocation for refusing a test the primary administrative remedy.
Furthermore, subsection 2 of NDCC 39-20-04 lists the criteria to be met if a driver who pleads guilty to criminal charges is not to be subject to administrative revocation of his license for refusing a test. These criteria require that the driver not request an administrative hearing and that the driver, within 25 days after issuance of a temporary operator's permit,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Grand Forks v. Mata
...revocation of his license for refusing the test by complying with N.D.C.C. Sec. 39-20-04(2). See generally Fetzer v. Director, Dept. of Transportation, 474 N.W.2d 71, 72 (N.D.1991). The Department of Transportation, concluding that Mata had not complied with the statute, refused to change t......
-
Suelzle v. N. Dakota Dep't of Transp.
...private property. Mayland, 2017 ND 244, ¶¶ 13-14, 902 N.W.2d 762. To the extent that Novak , Wiederholt , or Fetzer v. Dir., N.D. Dep't of Transp. , 474 N.W.2d 71 (N.D. 1991), interpreted N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01 to reach all private property without regard to whether there is a public right of ......
-
State v. Mayland
...right of access" to include private parking lots, farmyards, unimproved private residential lots, and ditches. Fetzer v. Director, Dep't of Transp. , 474 N.W.2d 71, 73 (N.D. 1991) (reversing district court conclusion that actual physical control did not apply on private residential developm......
-
Krabseth v. Moore
...revocation of the person's license under Section 39-20-04(1), N.D.C.C., for refusing a chemical test. Fetzer v. Director, Dep't of Transp., 474 N.W.2d 71, 72 (N.D.1991). ¶9 Under Subsection 39-20-04(2), N.D.C.C., revocation of driving privileges for failure to test can be avoided if all of ......